Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Thomas Sowell on Different Meanings of the Word "Racism"

This passage is from Race and Cultures: A World View by
Thomas Sowell. Pages 154-155:

One of the most used and least defined words in the contemporary
ideological vocabulary is “racism.” The most straightforward meaning of racism
is a belief in the innate inferiority of some race or races. This is the sense
which conjures up the image of Hitler and the Holocaust. But the word “racism”
is often applied in other, very different, senses to wholly different
situations. To some, every adverse judgment about any aspect of behavior or
performance of any racial or ethnic group is “racism.” To others, it is only
adverse judgments on the behavior or performance of a selected list of racial
or ethnic groups which is “racism.” Thus, even sweeping denunciations of
whites, “Anglos,” or perhaps Jews, may be exempted from the charge of racism.

More generally, those particular groups whose historic
treatment is part of a general ideological indictment of Western civilization
cannot be criticized in any way without risking the charge of “racism.”
Conversely, verbal (or even physical) assaults originating within such groups
are often exempted from condemnation as racism – sometimes by an explicit
redefinition which requires power as an essential ingredient to racism, so that
blacks for example cannot be called racists in American society. If this kind
of reasoning were followed consistently, then Hitler could not have been
considered a racist when he was an isolated street corner rabble-rouser, but
only after he became chancellor of Germany.

With varying degrees of explicitness, these tendentious
ideological redefinitions of racism have become so intermingled with the
straightforward meaning – a belief in innate racial inferiority or superiority
– that the word may be irretrievably lost as a specific meaningful concept. The
social phenomenon it originally referred to may continue to exists, in varying
degrees and with varying effects, but empirical assessments of its existence or
importance are unlikely to be clarified by the use of such a chameleon-like
word. Indeed, the political overuse of the word may destroy its effectiveness
as a warning against a very real danger.

Many assume that racism is a prerequisite for
discrimination, or is virtually synonymous with it. However, a generalized hostility
or specific discrimination may be directed against a particular racial or
ethnic group, without any belief that they are innately inferior. A political
movement organized to ban Japanese immigration to the United States was quite clear
about this at their first meeting in 1905:

“We have been accustomed to regard the Japanese as an
inferior race, but are now suddenly aroused to our danger. They are not window
cleaners and house servants. The Japanese can think, can learn, can invent. We
have suddenly awakened to the fact that they are gaining a foothold in every
skilled industry in our country. They are our equal in intellect; their ability
to labor is equal to ours. They are proud, valiant, and courageous, but they
can underlive us…We are here today to prevent that very competition.”

Other groups have aroused resentments in other countries,
without any suggestion that they were racially inferiors. Often this resentment
has been based on acknowledged superior performance. In Honduras, for example,
the claim was that the Germans worked too hard for others to be able to compete
with them. In India’s state of Andhra Pradesh, a leader of the Telanganans
admitted that the rival Andhras were “better qualified for many of the jobs
than we are” but asked: “Are we not entitled to jobs just because we are not as
qualified?” With varying degrees of explicitness, many people in many lands
have recognized the capabilities of the Jews, the Chinese, the Lebanese, and
others-as reasons to discriminate against them. If “racism” is the appropriate
label for such behavior, then clearly the word is no longer being used in the
sense of a belief in innate inferiority. Sometimes a superiority has been conceded of the group targeted for
discrimination. In Nigeria, for example, discriminatory policies were advocated
on grounds that otherwise “the less well educated people of the North will be
swamped by the thrusting people of the South.” In Malaysia, it was likewise
argued: “Malaysia has far too many non-Malay citizens who can swamp the Malays
the moment protection is removed.”

The fundamental problem with an ideologically defined
vocabulary in discussions of racial or ethnic issues is not that those with
such a vocabulary may be right or wrong in this or that issue. The more
fundamental problem is that we forfeit our ability to examine such issues empirically,
and allow important social questions to be obscured, or the conclusions to be
preempted, by mere tendentious words. The painful history of racial and ethnic
relations is a sobering reminder of the high stakes which make clarity
imperative and obscurantism dangerous.

Sowell does an excellent job of laying this out. People who fling around the word "racist" ought to be a little more careful about what they are actually saying, because it can mean very different things depending on the context. Someone who, say, criticizes elements of American black culture isn't "racist" in the sense of believing in inherent genetic inferiority. Anyone who calls such a cultural critic a racist should at least acknowledge that they are expanding the definition from its original meaning to include other things. In fact, such a culture critic might be trying to identify a transient, fixable problem and may be arguing explicitly that a social problem is *not* written into the genes. Simply dismissing such a person as racist seems bizarre if their actual intent is to argue *against* a theory of inherent genetic inferiority in lieu of a cultural explanation. Of course these different senses of the word "racism" can refer to equally harmful attitudes; the resulting discrimination can be just as damaging to a minority group whether the oppressors believe they are generically inferior, culturally handicapped, or actually superior. But if the point is to avoid some tangible harm, then it would make more sense to discuss the problem in terms of the actual harm rather than appeal to a hysterical boo-word that only serves to muddy the waters.

One option is to do away with using "racism" as a boo-word altogether and simply state in clear language why the offensive idea in question is wrong. "You're a fucking racist!" is a non-starter if you're trying to have a conversation with someone. It invites blow-back. You might manage to shut someone up, but you'll have failed to change his mind. He'll sulk away still harboring the offensive thought, because the thought was never refuted or even examined in the light of day. Sowell makes it very clear in this book that he is concerned about the very real dangers of racism and racial politics. I read him as calling for clearer language in discussing such dangers.